Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will respond to specific amendments but, first, it is important to note that page 12 of the Bill sets out the definition of what a "provided item" is. The whole purpose behind this legislation is to provide adopted people with information. We have discussed the various categories of information. However, its purpose is also to provide them with provided items. If anything was left for them by their family members, they should be entitled to it. That is why we have drawn this broad definition. It is not a random definition or something that was concocted quickly. It has been worked on and thought about in the context of this legislation. That is really important to state. Every definition here has been thought about in a lot of detail to ensure it interacts properly with the rest of this legislation and also with other legislation. Where we have recognised that the definitions we have do not square with everything, as was the case with the last amendment, we are happy to admit that and bring forward changes. However, we do not believe that the changes Deputies have proposed here are appropriate.

As it currently stands, the definition sets out the different items that may be contained within records that must be released in all cases. The types of items included in the definition are letters, photographs, mementoes or any other documents or objects. The list provided in the legislation on page 12 is not exhaustive. That is really important. It also provides for the different types of people who may lodge a provided item. This includes parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles and first cousins. Both items placed on historic files and items provided through the contact preference register that will be established under this legislation are provided for.

I cannot support amendment No. 79. As I have said, the definition of a "provided item" is central to ensuring clarity and consistency and guaranteeing the release of items and it provides an important mechanism through which historic items can be shared with the person to whom they relate and family members will be allowed to share contemporaneously provided items.

Again, I cannot support amendment No. 80. The definition of a "provided item" was carefully considered in the drafting of the Bill and the list of persons who can deposit provided items was carefully considered in that drafting. To make it clear, the ability to lodge a provided item with the authority under section 39(1) is not the only way in which a person can share information. The robust statutory tracing service established under Part 8 of this legislation provides for information to be shared or requested while maintaining the level of contact a person is comfortable with. It is important that the tracing service allows the person initiating the trace and the person on the other end of the trace to have the final say with regard to the degree of contact they want.

With regard to amendments Nos. 165, 166, 168 to 172, inclusive, 226 to 228, inclusive, 258 and 260, I again cannot support the amendments. In terms of the threshold for the release of information, it is important to note that, as it stands, the section does not stipulate the threshold of proof required to fulfil the criteria in respect of a specified item or provided item for the purposes of being made available to the relevant person. I will be publishing policy guidelines in respect of that. We discussed the issue of the provision of policy guidelines when we discussed similar amendments last week. These guidelines will confirm the ability of the bodies to release provided items. In the future, any provided items lodged under section 39(1) will fall under the criteria of specified items or items provided for the purpose of being made available to the same person and their release will not require any degree of discretion.

With regard to amendments Nos. 168 and 172, while I understand the intention behind these amendments, it is important to note that the application process is important for a number of reasons, the most significant of these being that relevant persons have complete control over the categories of information they are seeking and wish to access. That is important. We want to maintain that process.

Amendments Nos. 171, 227 and 260 seek to place an obligation on both the agency and the authority to seek out records that they do not hold without any certainty that they exist. Again, the whole purpose behind this legislation is to require the authority or the agency to release all information it has. It will not have a choice or discretion but must release that information. These amendments ask the authority or agency to go looking for information that it does not have and that it does not even know exists. We have spoken about division of resources and the need to allow these agencies to focus on the delivery of what will be, in the initial years, a significant amount of information. To ask them to go looking for information when they do not know whether it exists is not a good use of the resources of either the Adoption Authority of Ireland, AAI, or Tusla when large numbers of people are on waiting lists whose information is available and there to be released. There is also the question of how we would ever know whether this obligation has been fulfilled. How do you ever know if an agency has done all it can to find information that you do not know exists? This provision is not workable and, as such, I cannot support it.